Re: Bug#234650: Looks like version bit rot
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Phil Karn wrote:
> > What exactly? This statement is way too generig for me to understand if
> > there is a problem and where is located.
>
> After I first filed the report, I dug more deeply into the problem. What
> had actually broken was my virtual host configuration. Basically, it was
> being ignored. I redid it from scratch by hand, and it all works now. I
> don't yet understand exactly what went wrong.
Can you send me the old config files? I need to be able to dig into
details.
> > Configurations are provided as examples. They cannot fit all users.
>
> I understand. The real question is whether an upgrade should break older
> configuration files that used to work just fine (even ones that *may* be
> arguably incorrect or ambiguous) and if so, what kind of warning should
> be given during an upgrade.
An upgrade shouldn't break the working config. But i need to see them
before and after to understand what went wrong.
Fabio
--
<user> fajita: step one
<fajita> Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
<user> fajita: step two
<fajita> When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.
Reply to: